MLB Owners have delayed the sale of the San Diego Padres

by Dex on Jan 12, 2012 5:26 PM PST

The expected transfer of ownership from John Moores to the Jeff Moorad ownership group has officially been postponed. Lots of sources are reporting much of the summary, but here's what there is to know in some bullets. I'll source anything that isn't known, but let me know what you need sources for because otherwise, I'll just be summarizing.

A vote was to happen at today's meeting. For the ownership transfer to be approved, the Padres would have needed 75% of owners approving.
At a caucus prior to the vote ever happening, there were questions regarding details surrounding the financing.
There has NOT been a vote. The vote itself was postponed following the caucus discussions.
The balance required to buy the team has been presented by the Moorad group and is reported to be in escrow currently.
There is no official word that the pending television deal is what is somehow holding up the sale.
The caucus that discussed the open questions that needed to be answered before the matter could be put to vote included Jerry Reinsdorf, owner of the Chicago Whitesox.
Supposedly, Jerry Reinsdorf is not a fan of Moorad from back in Moorad's agent days.
The TV deal is not at risk, though is not currently approved.
Bud Selig and Jeff Moorad are both quoted as saying that this is not a major issue.
Selig believes that another face to face meeting is not needed and that approval could happen via conference call in the coming months and before opening day.
Allegedly in response to the delay, John Moores was the one owner who voted against renewing Bud Selig's contract. Jeff Moorad, as currently a minority owner, does not yet formally have a vote.
Today's vote of transfer would have been years early. The original reports have been that the transfer of ownership would happen over the course of 5 years. This timeline was sped along at the insistence of John Moores and Jeff Moorad was able to get the ownership group to front the monies earlier.

In the end, assuming that the sale is approved and the owners have done their due diligence, then this can only be a good thing for the Padres and Padres fans. The ownership transfer will still be happening years in advance of what we expected and the other owners should be satisfied that the Moorad groups' intentions are on the up and up. It's a bit disconcerting that the group wasn't as prepared as they could be, but it's not the first time that such a transfer was delayed prior to reaching vote so this isn't unheard of.

Tweet Comment 29 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

You're absolutely right on not being the first time a sale was held up

This happened in a similar manner with the Astros sale last year. Originally it was to be sold and voted on in August but was delayed as the owners wanted to do more research on the group that eventually bought the Astros.

That and they needed to strong arm the two groups to get the astros to the AL.

Scowling at Padres Losses since 1981

by Nater Tater on Jan 12, 2012 6:39 PM PST reply actions

this is different isn't it?

This isn’t questioning a new group. This is questioning a group that was already approved and paid a ton of money to buy the team. If MLB doesn’t like the answers do they give Moorad a refund and give Moores the team back? The timing to this is odd.

by Ualtar on Jan 13, 2012 7:28 AM PST up reply actions

Is it different?Yes and no

IIRC correctly they approved the sale structure that Moores presented. The other owners have never voted on Moorad and his minority interest. Because Moorad is now attempting to take majority (and full) control, the owners now have to approve. Because they are doing so 2 years early, I think that raises some more questions too.

So its different in that , yes, the Moorad group was previously involved, but no , in that this is still the first time the owners are having to vote on this group. If they don’t approve the purchase, its just the remaining 51% that becomes the issue, So Moores and Moorad would have to decide what steps to take next regarding their shares.

Scowling at Padres Losses since 1981

by Nater Tater on Jan 13, 2012 10:54 AM PST up reply actions

Sale was delayed

to keep Padre’s Fans from getting great cheeseburgers and tacos at the ballpark.

"Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

by Ron Mexico on Jan 12, 2012 7:08 PM PST reply actions

Remain calm. All is well

by Micker716 on Jan 12, 2012 7:52 PM PST up reply actions

How dare they block our quest to get good food at Petco!!!

Ehhhh, I don't deserve a signature...

by sdchicken on Jan 12, 2012 10:12 PM PST up reply actions

I'm itching for the end of February to roll around

Need baseball. Can’t wait for them to announce the Fan Fest events.

As for the ownership, don’t really see it as a big deal as it will probably get approved, just makes the waiting game on the TV deal longer. At least if there was no TV, there would be no Dick.

Mat Latos is the real deal...Go Lakers, Pads, and Bolts

by mrbarneydangles on Jan 12, 2012 7:47 PM PST reply actions

Reports suggest that Moores was pretty animated in expressing his anger.

I would be angry too if I had $150,000,000 waiting for me in escrow and somebody blocked it. I love that he didn’t vote for Selig.

by SeeAnFrockOh on Jan 13, 2012 12:27 AM PST reply actions

IT

by SanDiegoKev on Jan 13, 2012 7:14 AM PST reply actions

It's an interesting side note

that the only owner that didn’t vote for the continuation of Bud Selig as the Commissioner:

the 1 owner who voted against selig was moores of sd. he is steamed. he wants out. (and so far can’t get out)

by SanDiegoKev on Jan 13, 2012 7:19 AM PST reply actions

Buggeration

Selig needs to go. If they let Moorad take over 49%, there is no earthly reason not to let them take the rest. Especially if they have the cash in escrow – it’s got to come from somewhere and as far as I know, there are no rules against borrowing cash to pay for baseball teams (McCourt). I’d rather have a less broke ownership team, but Moores clearly wants out.

I think it’s a delaying tactic for the TV deal until they can get McCourt out of LA. The whole MLB owners club is even more ridiculous than the NFL.

by EnglishChris on Jan 13, 2012 8:07 AM PST reply actions

I think that McCourt

Is at least in part of whats going on here. I think MLB would now prefer that borrowing not be used. Purely speculating- But I wonder if borrowing did happen and the questions are in regards to repayment , terms of loan, etc.

Also , they never had any vote one way or the other on Moorad’s 49% Moores was still had majority interest, and that was what mattered to MLB and their owners.

Scowling at Padres Losses since 1981

by Nater Tater on Jan 13, 2012 10:59 AM PST up reply actions

I thought about this whole thing overnight and

I think that maybe this isn’t really such a big deal. Moorad attempted to complete this purchase ahead of schedule, so maybe some of the dialogue that was meant to go on between the league offices and the Padres regarding the purchase over the next two years while the purchase slowly was completed had to be quickly discussed in one meeting yesterday. Well, when there were maybe a few questions that could not be answered right then, either because Moorad/Moores were ill prepared or because there was not enough time in the meeting considering that Bud Selig had another important meeting to get to (his contract extension signing) they tabled the discussions for another time.

I could be wrong, and I most certainly probably am, but this is probably something that will be settled before the start of the season. As for Moores being so Angry… Well of course he is. It’s probably not about the money specifically, because he does well for himself and one month longer of having to hold off on getting $140 million isn’t going to kill him. But anyone who’s been through a divorce where there are assets to have to liquidate wants to finish up that process ASAP. The last thing you want to do is keep an ongoing conversation between divorce attorneys over multiple years. So, he was probably super excited to finally be done with everything yestersay, only to be disappointed that it didn’t work out. I could only imagine how much ass that would suck.

"Well, he ought to go home and find somebody else to bang." Jerry Coleman

by cubbuster on Jan 13, 2012 9:36 AM PST reply actions

I agree

This appears to be a non-story. Also keep in mind that this was a trip to Arizona that John Moores apparently didn’t have to make. Maybe he had a golf date.

by Dex on Jan 13, 2012 10:53 AM PST up reply actions

and John Moores

is forced to deal with an angry ex-wife for another month or two

On the other hand, you have different fingers.

by Hormel on Jan 13, 2012 11:55 AM PST up reply actions

Want proof its no big deal?

ESPN and MLB Network didn’t even report the delay.
Then again, this is San Diego.

Scowling at Padres Losses since 1981

by Nater Tater on Jan 13, 2012 11:01 AM PST up reply actions

Do they report sales of the other minor league teams?

by Ualtar on Jan 13, 2012 11:18 AM PST up reply actions

hahah nice

"I suggest more bike" ~KSK

"The Red Sox and Yankees are playing as I type but I don't know who's winning because I don't watch Arena League baseball." - the genius TTG

Destroying your facts with opinions

by justdave on Jan 13, 2012 1:03 PM PST up reply actions

Well, since you're being a smartass

Yes they do

"Well, he ought to go home and find somebody else to bang." Jerry Coleman

by cubbuster on Jan 13, 2012 11:30 AM PST reply actions

that was supposed to be a reply to Ualtar

"Well, he ought to go home and find somebody else to bang." Jerry Coleman

by cubbuster on Jan 13, 2012 11:31 AM PST up reply actions

just playing devils advocate here

But that was an AP article

by kevintheoman on Jan 13, 2012 12:01 PM PST via mobile up reply actions

youre right

I saw the story on the website and didn’t even look at the source. But for the sake of argument… I’m sure at some time ESPN has reported on the sale of minor league teams. But regardless, the intent of the original comment was to call the home team a minor league team…. When there are, in fact, much worse MLB teams than us.

"Well, he ought to go home and find somebody else to bang." Jerry Coleman

by cubbuster on Jan 13, 2012 12:43 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs

who are you

and what did you do with cubbuster? :-) Changed your avatar pic too , makes me think you are someone different!! :-) Just messin with ya of course! Proud of you though, twice today getting on those that are negative on the padres

Scowling at Padres Losses since 1981

by Nater Tater on Jan 13, 2012 12:46 PM PST up reply actions

thats the thing though

Just because I am bummed about being one of the lowest spending teams in baseball doesn’t mean I’m not a fan. I love the Padres. It would be crazy if I didn’t seeing as how much money I spend on them every year.

But just because I root for the name on the front of the Jersey doesn’t mean I always root for the name who purchased it.

"Well, he ought to go home and find somebody else to bang." Jerry Coleman

by cubbuster on Jan 13, 2012 1:43 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs

I hear ya

I may not always agree with you, and usually don’t, but at least you still support the team.

Scowling at Padres Losses since 1981

by Nater Tater on Jan 13, 2012 4:39 PM PST up reply actions

This is probably a minor glitch, but the Moorad group IS a LLC.

“Limited Liability Corporation”. The two issues mentioned were the new group’s ability
to cover cash calls, where each owner has to chip in for something or other, like buying
the Expos and moving them to Washington, and Selig specifically mentioned debt, which
for the Padres is the assumed debt from the Petco deal, $115 million plus the overrun costs.

You can inject Reinsdorf’s personal animosities, but there is definitely a question of debt
and cash calls for a LLC. I’m assuming Moorad’s group issued assurances on those issues,
but some owners and the financial chief of MLB may want something in writing. A simple
addendum accepting liability beyond the LLC structure may cover it.

by wegotballsley on Jan 13, 2012 2:05 PM PST reply actions